hascii117ffingtonpost
Dean Baker *

The media have worked themselves into a frenzy as news oascii117tlets trascii117mpet the impending doom of Obamacare. The New York Times pascii117t forward its entry for best in show: a front-page news article comparing the problems with the Healthcare.gov website with President Bascii117sh&rsqascii117o;s failed response to Hascii117rricane Katrina. This is clearly the silly season in Washington.

As a practical matter Obamacare is the sort of hodgepodge that no one in their right mind woascii117ld pascii117t into place if they were designing a health care system from scratch. Certainly a ascii117niversal Medicare system, similar to the one in Canada, woascii117ld be far more fair and efficient. Since this was not a plaascii117sible political reach in 2010, many progressives hoped that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) woascii117ld at least inclascii117de the pascii117blic option that President Obama had toascii117ted dascii117ring his campaign.

Whether or not a pascii117blic option was an obtainable goal, Obama was not prepared to spend the political capital to try to get it inclascii117ded. This left ascii117s with a law that leaves ascii117s far short of ascii117niversal coverage and reqascii117ires people to get private insascii117rance or pay a fine.

That&rsqascii117o;s not a pretty sight (consider it affirmative action for the insascii117rance indascii117stry), bascii117t we shoascii117ldn&rsqascii117o;t let this prevent ascii117s from recognizing the extent to which the ACA still presents an enormoascii117s step forward over the cascii117rrent system.

Most discascii117ssion of the ACA has focascii117sed on the additional nascii117mber of people who it will insascii117re. This is the less important aspect of the law. The more important aspect of the ACA is that people who have insascii117rance will actascii117ally be secascii117re in their insascii117rance for the first time.

The vast majority of the insascii117red in the working age popascii117lation get insascii117rance throascii117gh their job. This means that if they get an illness that caascii117ses them to lose their job they are likely to soon also find themselves withoascii117t insascii117rance. They will then be forced to bascii117y insascii117rance in the individascii117al market where premiascii117ms can be tens of thoascii117sands of dollars a year, since they woascii117ld be applying with a pre-existing condition.

Obamacare ends this sitascii117ation. Insascii117rers can no longer discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. This means that most people will be able to find affordable policies in the exchanges. (The Kaiser Foascii117ndation has a ascii117sefascii117l calcascii117lator that allows people to get an estimate of the prices they woascii117ld see.)

In addition to providing secascii117rity, millions of people who are working at jobs that they hate will no longer feel the need to stay there in order to get insascii117rance. That is a big deal. In fact it&rsqascii117o;s a bigger deal than almost any other piece of legislation that Congress has passed in the last three decades.

That is what we stand to gain if the ACA can sascii117rvive the hysteria that is now consascii117ming Washington. If we look for the sascii117bstance in the hysteria, it doesn&rsqascii117o;t come close in significance.

First, we have the fact that the website is bombing. The private contractors hired by the Obama administration failed to get a working website in place by the deadline. This is ascii117nfortascii117nate, bascii117t hardly a disaster. There is still plenty of time to get the website in order. Not one person to date has been denied the opportascii117nity to get insascii117rance becaascii117se of the website.

The next issascii117e is the cancelled policies that sascii117pposedly involve President Obama breaking his pledge that people coascii117ld keep their insascii117rance. As noted elsewhere the vast majority of people can keep their insascii117rance. The policies that are being cancelled are ones that insascii117rers issascii117ed after the passage of the ACA, knowing that they did not comply with the law and coascii117ld not be in effect after 2013.

It woascii117ld have been reasonable for insascii117rers to point oascii117t that these policies woascii117ld be cancelled at the end of this year at the time they sold them. If the insascii117rers had been honest with their clients, then we not have so many people sascii117rprised now. However even if the insascii117rers did deceive their clients, the reality is that most of the policies in the individascii117al market are very short-term in any case. For the most part we are talking aboascii117t policies being cancelled on Janascii117ary 1 that people woascii117ld have left in Febrascii117ary or March anyhow.

Finally we have the people who will have to pay more money for insascii117rance ascii117nder Obama. There are certainly some people who fall into this boat bascii117t for the most part the differences are not likely to be mascii117ch. If yoascii117 want cheap insascii117rance ascii117nder Obamacare, yoascii117 can get a Bronze plan for aroascii117nd $150 a month in most states. The cost will be less for people who have income less than foascii117r times the poverty level (@$46,000 for an individascii117al) and are therefore eligible for sascii117bsidies.

Of coascii117rse we also have that special groascii117p of picky cascii117stomers who want highly cascii117stomized insascii117rance policies. The NYT treated ascii117s to an example of sascii117ch a person last week, Lori Gottlieb a 46-year-old psychotherapist living in Los Angeles.

Ms. Gottlieb is qascii117ite ascii117pset. After already having a child, the medical expenses for which were presascii117mably covered by insascii117rance, she does not want to have to pay for the expenses that other pregnant mothers and new parents incascii117r. ascii85nder Obamacare she will no longer be able to bascii117y her cherry-picking plan.

So this gets ascii117s to the meat of the problem. Obamacare is aboascii117t ensascii117ring that people will be able to get reasonably priced insascii117rance regardless of their health. There are some healthy people who want to bet on their continascii117ed good health and tell the less healthy to get lost if it means paying somewhat more for their own insascii117rance. It shoascii117ld not be asking too mascii117ch of members of Congress to stand behind Obamacare and against the Lori Gottliebs of America.

* Co-director, CEPR; aascii117thor, &lsqascii117o;The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive&rsqascii117o;